×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

382 comments

also... (-1)

Adolf Hitroll (562418) | about 12 years ago | (#3357082)

why should I care ?
these are not my rights but the rights of the downunderers :-)

Kiwis Kids are Trolling Kids... (-1)

on by (572414) | about 12 years ago | (#3357149)

we're all going on a trolling holiday
no more +5's for a week or two
fun and laughter on a trolling holiday
negative karma for me and you
for a week or two

we're going to have to crapflood nightly
we're going to post some goatse too
coz *BSD is dying
mix hot grits in your poo

everybody have a trolling holiday
avoiding things normal slashbots do
so we're going on a trolling holiday
to make our first posts come true
first me then you

World Cup (-1)

GafTheHorseInTears (565684) | about 12 years ago | (#3357227)

Hey, did you know the World Cup (or as we say in the US, the "World Cup of Soccer") is being held in Japan this year?

What's really cool is that every time the Japanese team wins a match, they bring out a girl in a school uniform and everyone in the stadium gets to bukakke her!

Go Japan!

Eva !? (-1)

Adolf Hitroll (562418) | about 12 years ago | (#3357085)

Wo bist du ?

Re:Eva !? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3357271)

Guten Tag.
Hier ich bin. Immer wann ich ein deutsch lesend auf Slashdot ich gross freuen. Wo du kommst her? Ich aus Munich komme. Wo man gross 1-Liter Bier-Tankard trinkt und der Yodel-Gesang singt.
Auf Wiedersehen.
Eva.

Re:Eva !? (-1)

Adolf Hitroll (562418) | about 12 years ago | (#3357340)

I bi jetzt versteckt in Bärn wo man auch ohne Bier zufrieden sein darft :-)
"Eva, Auf Wiedersehen !" (W3d/ep3/Lev6)

damnit (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3357088)

seriously, i think what should really be banned are the sticks that seem to be lodged deeply in the butts of all these politicians.

Kinda Sad Really (1)

cm0s (574265) | about 12 years ago | (#3357090)

It's a shame that .nz Telecom won't just put their play-fair hat on and start trying to give us service to complete with the rest of the world. 128kbit/sec just plain sucks. So too is it a shame that our leading newspaper can't employ a technical editor with enough competence to get simple math right, or acknowledge a mistake in an article instead of just editing the electronic copy. This article also demonstrates an ignorance on the authors behalf with respect to proper notation for network units. Let alone the blatant crap he is saying about Windows Update being a server as well. How about Telecom/XTRA paying 5c per Meg? It's more like 5c per Gigabyte, if not less. Lets hope the good-willing public of New Zealand don't happen to encounter this pile of drivel.

Re:Kinda Sad Really (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3357117)

128kbit/sec just plain sucks

Try 14,4 buddy.

Re:Kinda Sad Really (2, Informative)

Plug (14127) | about 12 years ago | (#3357200)

For those who haven't been following the entire debate, when the article was first posted online yesterday Chris Barton suggested that vampires on their 128Kbit connections were downloading "5Gb (gigabytes) a day / 120Gb/month."

Today, it has been corrected. Not annotated, acknowledged or errata'd -- silently replaced.

A very good Register article (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3357093)

Microsoft will get away with IT [theinquirer.net]

First, let me warn you. If you are not a Microsoft fan, what follows will not be a pleasant read. Maybe you thought the antitrust case would stop the worst of Microsoft's behaviour. Maybe you're thinking Linux will rule one day. Start thinking again...

Wrong (5, Insightful)

DarkZero (516460) | about 12 years ago | (#3357098)

What Telecom fails to recognise is that these people are pushing the envelope of what the Internet can do, and will drive the technology economy in years to come.

The problem here is that Telecom HAS recognized that these people are pushing the envelope of what the internet can do and that it will drive the technology economy in years to come. They also realize that P2P is very expensive for ISPs because it actually makes the "unlimited use" part of their customers' contracts a true statement. Thus, they are trying their best to turn back the clock and bring back the days when they made more money per customer.

They're not being ignorant. They're being smart. They're also being money grubbing assholes, but that's beside the point. ;)

Re:Wrong (1, Flamebait)

Matthew Luckie (173043) | about 12 years ago | (#3357156)

I don't understand how Chris Barton can say that P2P users are driving the Internet, and how these people will drive the knowledge economy in years to come.

They are stealing copyrighted media. This is illegal. They should go to somewhere like China where there is no copyright law, and see how they like that knowledge economy.

Re:Wrong (4, Informative)

forgoil (104808) | about 12 years ago | (#3357193)

Exactly, I can't figure out how anyone could ever make any real money on these technologies. P2P has it's uses, but it won't have any more impact that anything else in the computing world.

The ISPs doesn't have the money to build superfast networks and charge almost nothing for it. I am afraid that the massive use of bandwidth will only result in services where you pay according to how much bandwidth you eat up. That in turn will deliver the internet completely into the hands of the rich media companies that can afford setting up servers.

Re:Wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3357206)

Well boo fuckin' hoo...
I am sure I'll cry myself a river tonight for the poor RIAA executives that can't afford to eat.

The "copyright industry" is a dinosaur, the faster it is forced to reform, the better for mankind, artists and audience alike.

Art will always be made and apprechiated, as long as man exists. Maybe less art will be made with the main purpose of making money, but I can't really see how this is a bad thing.
The content industry will have to reform of course, and possibly accept a smaller cashflow. But that's life in a capitalist economy. If your business model don't float, you sink. And if you don't accept that you are building China here right now! (I leave the pros and cons of "socialism" and "capitalism" aside for now...)

On the positive side of this demise of the content industry as we know it is free (almost) information to everyone (almost).
This will be a huge leap forward for mankind!
And the ill effects on the economy will be temporary at most, people will not stop spending their disposable income just because they are not buying musik. They will simply use their money for something else, wich will benefit some other industry.

To sum up.
Quit whining, deal.

Re:Wrong (3, Insightful)

perky (106880) | about 12 years ago | (#3357254)

On the positive side of this demise of the content industry as we know it is free (almost) information to everyone (almost).
except that it won't mean that at all because if the content producer cannot make enough cash out of producing content, then he won't be able to produce anything at all. That means less information available to all.


Yes, I agree that the RIAA, MPAA are greedy motherfsckers. Yes, I agree that the internet presents a real opportunity to cut out the middleman in media distribution and publishing. No, I don't agree that there is no place for copyright law, and the right of the creator over his/her intellectual property.


just out of interest, what do you do for a living?

Re:Wrong (1)

paule9984673 (547932) | about 12 years ago | (#3357293)

content industry != content producer RIAA/MPAA != creator

The artist will continue to produce art and find other ways of distribution. He will probably be much better off financially than with the current system.

For most musicians that don't happen to be Michael Jackson or Britney Spears the content industry is the greatest risk for the creator's rights.

Re:Wrong (2)

Saeger (456549) | about 12 years ago | (#3357303)

(I'm not the original poster, but...)

cannot make enough cash out of producing content, then he won't be able to produce anything at all.

I think his point was that he doesn't much care for the over-produced crap out there, and would rather swim in low-budget crap because it's keep'n it real, yo. :)

My opinion is that we're going to have a hellish few decades ahead of us until such time as nanotechnology effectively transforms matter into information too... at which point the cost of producing just about anything drops to zero and capitalism (and the need for a selfish copyright) pretty much goes out the window.

--

Re:Wrong (2, Insightful)

phunhippy (86447) | about 12 years ago | (#3357212)

Good Morning Mr. Moron. you say: "I don't understand how Chris Barton can say that P2P users are driving the Internet.....".

Ok so all p2p people are stealing? your obviously misguided and have some serious reality issues.. I direct you over to http://www.furthurnet.com[furthurnet.com] where you can find a legal(no copyright violations here) p2p file program supported my muscians and listeners alike.

Re:Wrong (1)

jawtheshark (198669) | about 12 years ago | (#3357235)

You do realise that the author of the article specifically mentions that he uses Kazaa himself. You are not going to tell me that it is for legit use. Or did you think he'd install potential spyware just to "test" what those vampires are doing? I really think this guy doesn't have that much of a concept how networks work. The only thing he does is ranting that *his* Kazaa connection is slow and that it is due to "the Vampires".

I use Gnucleus for the sole reason of listening to music I never would have heard in the first place. And when I like I buy. What I do is illegal, yes, but not bad for the economy.
I'll shut up now...

Fuck you! 128K does not push the internet! (-1)

on by (572414) | about 12 years ago | (#3357158)

we're all going on a trolling holiday no more +5's for a week or two fun and laughter on a trolling holiday negative karma for me and you for a week or two we're going to have to crapflood nightly we're going to post some goatse too coz *BSD is dying mix hot grits in there too! everybody have a trolling holiday avoiding things normal slashbots do so we're going on a trolling holiday to make our first posts come true first me then you

Heh, that's Xtra, not telecom (3, Interesting)

LadyLucky (546115) | about 12 years ago | (#3357100)

Here, all DSL modems must go through Telecom's networks, as they own the lines, the exchanges, everything. You always pay around NZ$30 (around US$13) per month for the privilege of a DSL enabled line. The remaining NZ$35 or so you pay to whomever your ISP is, which is for many people Xtra. This gives you a 128kb connection, (in theory) unlimited traffic.

It seems Xtra has done this throttling, but that won't cause problems for those of us who dont you use Xtra (that's me!). It seems silly to say "people are using too much bandwidth, so rather than capping bandwidth (like most do), we'll try a round about way of doing that...". Strange. If the problem is too much traffic, well, then limit the traffic.

Re:Heh, that's Xtra, not telecom (1)

AtomicBomb (173897) | about 12 years ago | (#3357154)

This gives you a 128kb connection, (in theory) unlimited traffic.
Strictly speaking, it is not true. Most service around NZ has a string attached to it (something like capped the max data transfer to 10GB per month).

The reason why Telecom rants again is probably because they want to reduce the cap further, ie break their promise once again. IHug in New Zealand, which provides broadband by satellite/microwave, has reduced their cap to 2GB per month already.... I can expect Telecom will take such excuse and follow suit later.

Re:Heh, that's Xtra, not telecom (3, Interesting)

PhilHibbs (4537) | about 12 years ago | (#3357262)

If the problem is too much traffic, well, then limit the traffic.
If I were in charge of doing this, I would be inclined to implement some kind of adaptive throttling, so the more you downloaded over the last week, the slower your downloads run. So, if you are a low-volume user that needs to get a big file, it comes down quickly. If you run a Gnutella server, a Freenet server, and soak up the rest with a bit of spidering, then your connection slows down to a crawl. I would introduce a higher-usage rate that doesn't slow down as much. These slowdown rates would be adjustable on a quarterly basis with three months notice of the throttle change.

Tell us what services we can/cant run? (3, Insightful)

GnomeKing (564248) | about 12 years ago | (#3357104)

Why do ISPS always tell us what services we can and cant run on our computers?
Its fair enough to limit our bandwidth - but why can they say "your not permitted to run a www server 'cause it requires too much bandwidth"
there are MANY ways to use bandwidth and its just not possible to have an exhaustive list of things that use it "unfairly"...

I wouldnt have anything to complain about if they provided us with a daily quota (or something) whereby if you exceeded it then it reduced your bandwidth to a modem (but the quota added up up to a limit if it wasnt all used during a particular day)
But telling us we cant run specific programs?... that just isnt on imo
we pay for the bandwidth, we should be able to use it how we like
if these hogging programs are causing problems then the telco should look at methods other than blocking specific programs to fix the problem

Re:Tell us what services we can/cant run? (1)

Plug (14127) | about 12 years ago | (#3357172)

Telecom sell a 128Kbit DSL line to residential customers only, at a net cost of $70 a month.

A 128Kbit DDS for business usage - well, I'm not 100% sure, but a quick ask-around suggested up to $1000.

That is why you are not allowed to run servers on a Jetstart connection.

Re:Tell us what services we can/cant run? (1)

jawtheshark (198669) | about 12 years ago | (#3357253)

Well, it's not a good reason. Imagine I run a small website on my own machine (let's say a little site about sharks with a few pics and some info).
This site is small, for non-commercial use and is not likely ever to attract a huge amount of visitors. This is what I can personal use.

A company on the other hand is going to advertise it's URL heavily (it is a way of marketing and make bussinees), with as a probable result of very high bandwith usage.

I see no need why my little amateur-shark page coudn't be hosted by my own machine on DSL, for it would be sufficient and not harming bandwith usage. For a company I can understand: they expect a return of investement on their website and would eat DSL bandwith for breakfast.

Re:Tell us what services we can/cant run? (2, Funny)

AndroidCat (229562) | about 12 years ago | (#3357320)

This site is small, for non-commercial use and is not likely ever to attract a huge amount of visitors.

Hopefully you didn't just slashdot yourself!

Re:Tell us what services we can/cant run? (1)

jawtheshark (198669) | about 12 years ago | (#3357329)

LOL....No I currently have no site about sharks. I plan to put my personal page someday on my ADSL server, but that is when I got the time to make a full review of the existing pages (on my ISP's server).
However thanks for the concern... ;-)

Besides, slashdotting woudn't be aproblem: that would be exactly two days that your DSL connection would be busted and you'd have to take that as a honor for being posted on slashdot (which is very unlikely to happen anyday soon to me.)

Your rights online?? (5, Insightful)

jcam2 (248062) | about 12 years ago | (#3357107)

How is the traffic shaping (not blocking) of some
high-bandwidth using services related to the
rights on internet users? This is a commercial
decision made to save money on high bandwidth
costs, not some form of censorship.

I have to agree that this method of controlling
traffic is far from optimal though - instead,
Telecom NZ should simply charge for bandwidth
used and allow those who want to download
gigabytes from Kazaa to pay the full price.

Re:Your rights online?? (2, Interesting)

Plug (14127) | about 12 years ago | (#3357180)

There has been a case in New Zealand where a user successfully took Telecom to court when he received a $7000 DSL bill on his Jetstream (pay-per-mb DSL) connection. His kids ran Morpheus, and of course it was sending files out left right and center. He didn't think he should have to pay for that, and neither did the judge it seems.

A DDoS on a Jetstream customer has the potential to cost them many thousands of dollars.

Re:Your rights online?? (0)

tundog (445786) | about 12 years ago | (#3357202)

They are also losing out on an opportunity to 'grub more money' as so eloquently stated above.

Economics 101: If the demand increases, but the supply remains constant, then the natural result is that price increase.

They simply need to adjust their pricing to reflect the principle above. The way things look now is that demand is increasing, supply remains constant and price remains constant, of course they are losing out. Simply change the price to reflect the increased demand, for example, a surcharge on bandwidth use that exceeds typical demand.

By blocking big bandwidth-using applications, they are preventing themselves from cashing in on increased demand. Hasn't anyone learn anything about business models in the wake of April 2000???

The more people I meet, the more I like my dog.

Re:Your rights online?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3357352)

you are forgetting that there are other large interests at work here that think file sharing costs them more money than they can make if they charged for bandwidth of the copyrighted transfers. these interests are increasibly the same as the isps.. and there are probably backroom deals when the media company doesnt own an isp outright

Re:Your rights online?? (1)

wanion (94098) | about 12 years ago | (#3357223)

instead, Telecom NZ should simply charge for bandwidth used and allow those who want to download gigabytes from Kazaa to pay the full price.

There is the option to pay based on usage, which also isn't capped at 16KB/sec download, but it is excessively expensive for home use. A plan [telecom.co.nz] with a 500MB monthly cap is NZ$20 (20c/MB over) more expensive than flat rate [telecom.co.nz] capped at 16KB/sec (no monthly cap currently on Telecom's Xtra [xtra.co.nz] but most ISPs cap this at 10GB/month).

Re:Your rights online?? (2)

Saeger (456549) | about 12 years ago | (#3357257)

pay the full price

Except that 'full price' would be defined as some grossly inflated rate by these money grubbers. I wouldn't mind paying a fair price for bandwidth ($1.50/GB is fair for 'overages') on the condition that the ISP didn't charge for unutilized bandwidth during offpeak hours (since it's no skin off their back), and they also stopped deceptively advertising the service as unlimited 24/7/365.

--

Re:Your rights online?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3357338)

I used to work at a certain midwest ISP and i can tell you that $1.50 per gig would not at all be a fair deal for us. there are a lot of other costs that have to be factored in when dealing with hoards of whiny, expensve users that you dont have to in webhosting which is where you got that figure i'm guessing.

ALL HAIL IRIX 6.5 (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3357109)

FIRST POST FROM AN IRIX BOX WITH SUPER FAST NETSCAPE. ekekekekekekekekkekekekekekekekekekekekekekekekeke kekekkekekekeke

Re:ALL HAIL IRIX 6.5 (0, Redundant)

gazbo (517111) | about 12 years ago | (#3357312)

I've heard good things about IRIX. Where can I get the RPM for IRIX 6.5? What libraries do I need to make it run on RedHat7.1?

How do you *know* this? (5, Insightful)

Foss (248146) | about 12 years ago | (#3357111)

"What Telecom fails to recognise is that these people are pushing the envelope of what the Internet can do, and will drive the technology economy in years to come."

How can you be sure of this? I expect the only thing that will drive technology is the need to make profit. If ISPs, hardware providers and comms companies didn't make profit, they'd have no real reason to carry on. Sure, there are a few nice companies out there that actually have good intentions and wish to see the Internet flourish, but they're not the people that control it.

Telecom have control and therefore they'll do whatever they can to make more profit. By restricting the high-end users, they're keeping more bandwidth/server time for the less regular customers - the regular joe that pays whatever they tell him to pay because he doesn't know any better.

British Telecom have done something very similar here. Users on the BT Anytime fixed-rate plan that use the Internet for over x hours a week have been given a seperate number to dial for their net access. This number connects them to a limited bandwidth "punishment pool". It's just business, and if they can make a profit out of it, they'll keep doing it.

Negligence and culpability (4, Interesting)

91degrees (207121) | about 12 years ago | (#3357121)

Of course they are. The amount of piracy throught these networks is incredible. In fact, the non-pirate data is almost non-existent.

By allowing their users to use these to pirate music, videos and software could result in the BSA, the RANZ and the NZMPA suing the ISP's for lost income. The court may even agree to partial damages. Even if the court only sides 10% with the IP industry, the cost to the ISP's could be unfeasably large.

Re:Negligence and culpability (3, Insightful)

pe1rxq (141710) | about 12 years ago | (#3357134)

IANAL (and don't know NZ law either...) but if they do it to prevent illegal copying it might backfire on them...
It is very simple the moment they go in and block people they stop being a simple carrier, they assume responsibility for the transfered data.

They probably do it just to cap bandwidth...
The problem is that these days an 'internet' connection really means 'http' connection.
A true INTERNET provider wouldn't care what you send over the wire as long as its in IP packets.

Jeroen

Re:Negligence and culpability (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3357307)

IANANZL (I am not a New Zealand Lawyer), but I am an Australian, and so my understanding of New Zealand law is 'If you get there first, the Ewe is yours'

Greetings from New Zealand, where men are men, and sheep are nervous

Go TelstraSaturn (3, Interesting)

freitasm (444970) | about 12 years ago | (#3357122)

What happened some time ago was a father complaining about the 10GB download in a month - his son was using AudioGalaxy... Then Telecom decided to block ports because of this - and bandwidth.

I use TelstraClear cable-modem service. There's no port blocks and their Terms and Conditions tell me I can run any server I want - including pop3, smtp or http.

Also, one can get a fixed IP instead of dynamic. Very handy...

Just ditch Telecom NZ!

Only if you live in Welly you fuckwad!! (-1)

on by (572414) | about 12 years ago | (#3357165)

and now some Cliff Richard...

we're all going on a trolling holiday
no more +5's for a week or two
fun and laughter on a trolling holiday
negative karma for me and you
for a week or two

we're going to have to crapflood nightly
we're going to post some goatse too
coz *BSD is dying
mix hot grits in there too

everybody have a trolling holiday
avoiding things normal slashbots do
so we're going on a trolling holiday
to make our first posts come true
first me then you

Re:Go TelstraSaturn (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3357168)

lol only if you live in either wellington or christchurch...elsewhere in NZ the only real choice is telecom...

Re:Go TelstraSaturn (1)

Plug (14127) | about 12 years ago | (#3357191)

If you live in Auckland, Wellington or Christchurch, sure.

Telecom own the local loop, therefore they have an effective monopoly on providing DSL.

No, just Welly...No cable in Aucks yet... (-1)

on by (572414) | about 12 years ago | (#3357208)

and no cable modem plan in chch..

we're all going on a trolling holiday
no more +5's for a week or two
fun and laughter on a trolling holiday
negative karma for me and you
for a week or two

we're going to have to crapflood nightly
we're going to post some goatse too
coz *BSD is dying
mix hot grits in there too

everybody have a trolling holiday
avoiding things normal slashbots do
so we're going on a trolling holiday
to make our first posts come true
first me then you

Phone Rates... (2)

phunhippy (86447) | about 12 years ago | (#3357237)

Telecom own the local loop,

I was just in New Zealand in october-january time frame(lovely country everyone should go!) and to call inside the country to a cell phone from a pay phone cost me NZ .40 cents a min(equal to .15 american) and to call home back to america per minute was NZ .05(.02 american)... cheaper to call across the oceans then across town? You guys need some deregulation of your phone industry there.... Still an awesome country thoe.. I'd love to live in the south island.. Monteiths Beer is the best too!... ok i'll shut up now...

Telecom Blocks (2)

Matthew Luckie (173043) | about 12 years ago | (#3357126)

The author of that article says that Telecom blocks P2P applications. The article also states that these "vampires" are the ones using 40GB per month in P2P. That logic does not add up at all, and I suspect Chris Barton is trolling.

Having said that, it is good that Telecom are blocking the use of P2P applications. The police are not in a position to prevent this illegal activity, and Telecom is both right and just in preventing the use of P2P.

These "vampires" use excessive amounts of bandwidth to conduct illegal activities, and I do not want to subsidise them on their flat-rate plans.

Re:Telecom Blocks (2, Insightful)

pe1rxq (141710) | about 12 years ago | (#3357144)

Having said that, it is good that Telecom are blocking the use of P2P applications. The police are not in a position to prevent this illegal activity, and Telecom is both right and just in preventing the use of P2P.

No they are not... they are NOT the police, they are NOT judges and they are NOT executioners. But they act like all of them...

They simply shouldn't sell 'unlimited' connections unless they plan to actually offer 'unlimited' data transfers.

Jeroen

Close your tags please! (-1)

on by (572414) | about 12 years ago | (#3357171)

And now, Cliff! we're all going on a trolling holiday no more +5's for a week or two fun and laughter on a trolling holiday negative karma for me and you for a week or two we're going to have to crapflood nightly we're going to post some goatse too coz *BSD is dying mix hot grits in there too everybody have a trolling holiday avoiding things normal slashbots do so we're going on a trolling holiday to make our first posts come true first me then you

Re:Telecom Blocks (2, Insightful)

Plug (14127) | about 12 years ago | (#3357159)

Sure, there's a fair chance that someone who downloads 40GB in a month is engaging in 'illegal activity', but Mr Luckie's conjecture that everyone single 'vampire' is doing this, is blatantly false. Take every Slashdot user's favourite example - downloading Linux ISOs. Even if you limit to P2P, there is a lot of legal music and multimedia to download. (Yes, I'm aware the numbers are against me.)

Here in NZ we have an all you can eat pizza restaurant called Pizza Hut. Sometimes I will eat more-pizza-per-dollar than buying just a single pizza from them, sometimes I will eat less. However, even if I ate ten pizzas, I'm sure I wouldn't be eating more than 'my moneys worth'.
I've heard stories that 128kbps of bandwidth costs $800. If Telecom have positioned their DSL service at $60/month, then they will be losing money on each person who uses the connection 24/7. That simply doesn't happen - name a company with sense that would sell a service at 1/13th of cost!

Xtra (Telecom's ISP are) have incorrectly provisioned bandwidth on their network and they are looking for a scapegoat - they've picked Kazaa. Most Xtra 128k DSL customers are locked to sub-modem speeds at the moment - change to another ISP and all of a sudden it's back to 16KB/s.
Flat rate is aimed at the heavy eaters. If you're only going to eat a couple of slices, you should buy a small pizza.

Re:Telecom Blocks (2)

Matthew Luckie (173043) | about 12 years ago | (#3357188)

I said: "The author of that article says that Telecom blocks P2P applications. The article also states that these "vampires" are the ones using 40GB per month in P2P. That logic does not add up at all, and I suspect Chris Barton is trolling."

You said: "Sure, there's a fair chance that someone who downloads 40GB in a month is engaging in 'illegal activity', but Mr Luckie's conjecture that everyone single 'vampire' is doing this, is blatantly false"

Thats exactly what I said. Move along, nothing to see here.

Vampires (5, Funny)

Alsee (515537) | about 12 years ago | (#3357127)

There are vampires in broadband land...
I'm talking about downloading on the internet - specifically music and videos via file-sharing networks such as KaZaA and Grokster.


Ahh! That finally explains why so many nodes seem to drop off the network around sunrise.

-

New way of locating peers (3, Interesting)

rbeattie (43187) | about 12 years ago | (#3357132)

No biggie... it just means that p2p clients will have to add in ports to their other forms of locating peers. For example, right now Gnutella queries well-known UltraPeers to prime the p2p pump and helps you locate peers around you (instead of spamming your network with random ping packages).

Well, obviously this "priming" will have to switch to use port 80 if others are blocked, then the response servers can give your client information about the "port of the day".

Personally, I think the P2P clients should use different ports for different uses. (And it's already enabled to change the port and client name in each Gnutella client). Music could have one port, eBooks on another, video another, and pr0n on another. This would be great so my quieries for "Bare Naked Ladies" brings up music instead of jpgs...

-Russ

Re:New way of locating peers (1)

blixel (158224) | about 12 years ago | (#3357153)

Well, obviously this "priming" will have to switch to use port 80 if others are blocked, then the response servers can give your client information about the "port of the day".

Umm... that would suck if you have a firewall. I like knowing that such and such service is using such and such port day in and day out. I don't want to reconfigure my firewall so that such and such service can work with the "port of the day".

P2P taking over from Pr0n? (3, Funny)

Richard_at_work (517087) | about 12 years ago | (#3357140)

What Telecom fails to recognise is that these people are pushing the envelope of what the Internet can do, and will drive the technology economy in years to come.

Sooo, when did p2p apps take over that torch from porn? :)

Kiwis love a bit of Cliff! (-1)

on by (572414) | about 12 years ago | (#3357141)

we're all going on a trolling holiday
no more +5's for a week or two
fun and laughter on a trolling holiday
negative karma for me and you
for a week or two

we're going to have to crapflood nightly
we're going to post some goatse too
coz *BSD is dying
mix hot grits in there too

everybody have a trolling holiday
avoiding things normal slashbots do
so we're going on a trolling holiday
to make our first posts come true
first me then you

Blocking? No... restricting? Only maybe. (2, Interesting)

silvaran (214334) | about 12 years ago | (#3357145)

They say they're "managing" the use of P2P apps, and that's all they say. Nothing about blocking. And you may still use these file sharing services, only you are subject to a restricted download. What did the writer say, sub-kb speeds? That's about what I get from most users on Kazaa.

On a lucky streak, I can get several kb. A little more now that my winbox is masqed behind my linux box (and I'm not subject to windows crappy IP stack as the bottleneck). Xtra must really be doing some heavy filtering on their server side to discriminate against P2P apps, if that is the case. Consequently, my connection is DSL, I'm in Canada, and I usually get around 150kb on a good day.

The reference to vampires and blood-sucking indivuduals gets tiresome. Talk about editorializing.

An ISPs perspective (5, Insightful)

fruey (563914) | about 12 years ago | (#3357147)

I work at an ISP in Morocco. We don't limit anything but then we don't provide high speed access at low cost. We don't do home DSL because the market isn't ready, and the first uptake will always be high-bandwidth users which will kill us if we did try to launch such a service as the first provider to do so.

For those of you more fortunate than I, that already live in an xDSL enabled area, I would like to draw an analogy.

You go to a restaurant with 10 friends, and you all agree to split the bill 10 ways, and pay 1/10 of the bill each.

Would you now say it was fair to order twice as much as everyone else, and a bottle of champagne for yourself?

That's the bandwidth issue. ISPs pool 2mbps or so for a circuit of n DSL subscribers. Those with the highest appetite still only pay 1/n of the bill.

Blame their business model if you like, but it's the market that is crying out for flat-rate high speed access. Flat-rate means, IMHO, making certain sacrifices. If you want hardcore fast, then pay the real price for the dedicated circuit. ISPs do not promise you a dedicated circuit for your low monthly fee. And ISPs pay full price for their dedicated circuits.

Re:An ISPs perspective (1)

GnomeKing (564248) | about 12 years ago | (#3357175)

No, I agree, thats not fair

But neither is it fair to tell the subscribers what they can and cant use their connection for.

The only fair solution (that I can think of) is to introduce some bandwidth limiting/quotaing that disuades people from using this p2p applications in an unfair way

That way the customer still gets to choose exactly what they want to do with the bandwidth they have paid for

Customers shouldnt be subsidising other customers, whether it be for them to run p2p stuff or for them to have a webserver, or anything like that

Cableco's are trying to keep the pricing structure and t&c the same for everyone - but it just isnt going to work when there are people who use the connections in very different ways

Whats next? their going to ban masquerading or other forms of connection sharing 'cause its unfair on the people who only have one computer connected?

Re:An ISPs perspective (1)

fruey (563914) | about 12 years ago | (#3357328)

That way the customer still gets to choose exactly what they want to do with the bandwidth they have paid for

That's exactly the problem. The customer hasn't paid for the whole meal, so any champagne they drink (above 1/10 of the bottle) is not paid for by them.

Re:An ISPs perspective (4, Insightful)

Brento (26177) | about 12 years ago | (#3357240)

You go to a restaurant with 10 friends, and you all agree to split the bill 10 ways, and pay 1/10 of the bill each. Would you now say it was fair to order twice as much as everyone else, and a bottle of champagne for yourself?

Another example: if you buy a commercial plane ticket for $100, do you expect to be able to pull the back door open and parachute jump out of it? No. There's no big conspiracy to halt your freedom, you just have to do it in the right plane: go hire a plane that is dedicated to doing that sort of thing.

If you want to run P2P apps from home, you need to understand that you can't jump out of every airplane, and you can't stick your friends with the champagne bill. Go get an ISP that allows for that kind of thing, and yes, it will cost you more. There's a time and a place for everything, and if you want to transmit huge files, it's going to cost you more.

What's that you say? You don't have the money? Well, just like everything else in the world, you gotta pay to play. Just because you can't get a free billboard in Times Square that says "I Love Morpheus" doesn't mean anybody's restricting your freedom of speech.

Re:An ISPs perspective (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3357295)

ISPs pay full price for their dedicated circuits.

Ooops! You accidentally made an argument that weakens your own claim. ISP's have to pay for their dedicated circuits anyways . Why does it matter whether the pipe is .40 or .60 full?


The reason people use ISP's is because ISP's function as a conglomerate of users. They can buy bandwidth in bulk and save tons of cash. The end-user cannot afford this. If you force all end-users to pay for dedicated circuits you are taking away the power of volume pricing. Seems like the winners are bandwidth providers. Making a buck off of your inability to purchase in bulk.

Re:An ISPs perspective (2, Informative)

fruey (563914) | about 12 years ago | (#3357333)

Ooops! You accidentally made an argument that weakens your own claim. ISP's have to pay for their dedicated circuits anyways . Why does it matter whether the pipe is .40 or .60 full?

The problem with ISPs only happens when the pipe is 100% full. They wouldn't limit if the pipe was only 40% full. They don't want to upgrade bandwidth on a pipe that's 100% full to support low-cost DSL subscribers.

As an ISP employee, I understand the business model of buy in bulk, sell in pieces. But don't think that I'm making money in this market... I bet I earn less than you by a large margin. Even relative to the price of living.

new economy?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3357151)

What Telecom fails to recognise is that these people are pushing the envelope of what the Internet can do, and will drive the technology economy in years to come."
Can someone tell me how exactly P2P networks will drive the technology economy? Last I saw, the only money P2P apps where making is from advertising. Or are you talking about some new P2P service where people pay you for downloading stuff from you??

Every thread needs some Cliff! (-1)

on by (572414) | about 12 years ago | (#3357190)

we're all going on a trolling holiday
no more +5's for a week or two
fun and laughter on a trolling holiday
negative karma for me and you
for a week or two

we're going to have to crapflood nightly
we're going to post some goatse too
coz *BSD is dying
mix hot grits in there too

everybody have a trolling holiday
avoiding things normal slashbots do
so we're going on a trolling holiday
to make our first posts come true
first me then you.

not a right (2, Insightful)

tomstdenis (446163) | about 12 years ago | (#3357160)

since when is using a P2P system [or any other] over a PRIVATE network a "right"?

I agree that the ports and services should be fully open [they shouldn't only keep tabs on who uses what bandwidth] but its not upto me, or you for that matter.

If I own a network and I rent out a connection, you do not have any rights as far as what you can do with are concerned that are not listed in the TOS.

Its just like renting an apartment. you're not allowed in most cases to tear down walls and piss off the balcony. Its not that your "rights" are being infringed its that its PRIVATE property.

Tom

Cliff is always right! (-1)

on by (572414) | about 12 years ago | (#3357176)

for any occassion!

we're all going on a trolling holiday
no more +5's for a week or two
fun and laughter on a trolling holiday
negative karma for me and you
for a week or two

we're going to have to crapflood nightly
we're going to post some goatse too
coz *BSD is dying
mix hot grits in there too

everybody have a trolling holiday
avoiding things normal slashbots do
so we're going on a trolling holiday
to make our first posts come true
first me then you

P.S. Telecom suck! And so does XTRA! Nya nya nya!

Re:not a right (2)

PigleT (28894) | about 12 years ago | (#3357238)

Who cares about a *private* network? Are these ISPs not *I*SPs??

Show us the T&Cs as well; I'll bet they don't say anything about p2p usage.

Re:not a right (1)

Mika_Lindman (571372) | about 12 years ago | (#3357317)

"If I own a network and I rent out a connection, you do not have any rights as far as what you can do with are concerned that are not listed in the TOS." Well, lets say you've lived in your apartment for few years. Then your landlord tells you that he doesn't make enough money. So he changes you contract (in your contract it says ofcourse that landlord has the right to do any kind of changes as he likes) so that you can live in your apartment for only 15 days a month. How would that sound like? ISPs are luring customers with all kind of things. But they also keep that "right to change all contracts" thing there, so that when they have enough customers they start RIPPING THEM OFF by changing contract.

Telecom == XTRA == NZ's AOL (1)

Byter (11845) | about 12 years ago | (#3357169)

Telecom runs commericals talking about the basic benefits of the Internet (for people who still don't know why they'd want this internet thing anyways). They also give away "Xtra" cd's for free in all kinds of stores, and they basically go after the "clueless users". So I don't think there will be too much of an outcry by people just struggling to understand how to web surf.

Most people who want a large (national) ISP but actually understand what they're doing use IHUG, and as far as I know, they don't have the same restrictions.

So think of this more like an "AOL restriction", and not like all of New Zealand is blocking P2P services.

Actually NZ's AOL is Asia On-Line :) (-1)

on by (572414) | about 12 years ago | (#3357184)

used to be called ICONZ. But now, some words from Sir Cliff!

we're all going on a trolling holiday
no more +5's for a week or two
fun and laughter on a trolling holiday
negative karma for me and you
for a week or two

we're going to have to crapflood nightly
we're going to post some goatse too
coz *BSD is dying
mix hot grits in there too

everybody have a trolling holiday
avoiding things normal slashbots do
so we're going on a trolling holiday
to make our first posts come true
first me then you

Er, what? (5, Interesting)

IamTheRealMike (537420) | about 12 years ago | (#3357178)

What Telecom fails to recognise is that these people are pushing the envelope of what the Internet can do, and will drive the technology economy in years to come.

No! The people who invented P2P apps maybe are pushing the envelope of what the net can do - but 95% of the people on the biggest P2P networks are just downloading free music. They're not pushing anything other than their luck, because they're basically massively abusing the system.

I'd love to be in NZ right now! Now all the kiddies that think downloading music and burning it to CDs for their friends constitutes a "business" - like some people I know - have had their access blocked, it means better connections for everyone else who does in fact respect the law. I think this should happen more.

Not exactly (1)

wanion (94098) | about 12 years ago | (#3357308)

I'd love to be in NZ right now! Now all the kiddies that think downloading music and burning it to CDs for their friends constitutes a "business" - like some people I know - have had their access blocked, it means better connections for everyone else who does in fact respect the law. I think this should happen more.

Oh, don't worry - they still provide a poor service where you're lucky to even get close to the 16KB/sec (128kbit) cap. It's not about providing a better service to their other customers, but merely increasing their margins and avoiding the need to upgrade their own equipment.

It would be nice if they were doing this for their other customers though. If they removed P2P altogether (not that FastTrack isn't effectively crippled as it is) and increased the cap to 32KB/sec that would be a real improvement which perhaps customers who aren't purely leeching might appreciate.

Contention Ratio Rules OK (1)

nelf (192284) | about 12 years ago | (#3357183)

I've heard the term 'contention ratio' many times over the last few years relating to internet access. The first time I heard it was relating to modems in a rack (and phone lines) compared to the number of customers being sold dial-up accounts. This is essentially the gamble that any ISP are making... they need to keep their contention ration as high as possible to make money.

The most recent time I heard it was relating to bi-directional satellite internet access in the European market. Essentially, a supposed 'broadband satellite ISP' was waxing lyrical about beating UKs British Telecom offering...both ISPs were offering the same bandwidth of course but....

The reasoning was this: BT has a contention ratio of about 20:1, so every 1MG of bandwidth would be sold 20 times... the other ISP proudly pointed out that they had a contention ratio of about 10:1

Excellent stuff :) The best thing about it all, is that, for love nor money, neither ISP will actually sell you a satellite access point, or provide the service that they're offering on their websites..... presumably because they'd need a contention ratio of about 50:1 to actually make any money at all :]

It Ain't Free (1, Troll)

hondo_san (565908) | about 12 years ago | (#3357185)

Fer fuck's sake... I keep hearing bitching and moaning about what we can or cannot do. Does anyone bitching about this realize how much P2P can suck from a network? (Of course you do) I've looked at MRTG at the ISP where I work (and where I'd like to someday get a raise) and many people are running full-throttle on the upload; the outgoing circuit is saturated for days! This is a consumer-grade product! It is designed for reasonble and just usage. We don't happen to give two shits whether you run a Web server or other stuff prohibited by other ISP's; in fact we promote ourselves as a "geek's ISP." But at some point we have to slap some people and remind them that a T costs a fuck-pile of money, and that they are not paying for a T, they are paying for DSL and such overuse is not in the "consumer envelope" The bandwidth is not infinite. Somebody has to pay for it if everybody wants to beat the crap out of their connections. The problem is, the user doesn't want to be that person. Ain't no free beer in this bar. I'm *totally* for P2P, but seriously, we need to realize that it can be used irresponsibly. - Hondo_san

Yawn! Please learn how to use whitespace, fucktard (-1)

on by (572414) | about 12 years ago | (#3357197)


we're all going on a trolling holiday
no more +5's for a week or two
fun and laughter on a trolling holiday
negative karma for me and you
for a week or two

we're going to have to crapflood nightly
we're going to post some goatse too
coz *BSD is dying
mix hot grits in there too

everybody have a trolling holiday
avoiding things normal slashbots do
so we're going on a trolling holiday
to make our first posts come true
first me then you!

Re:It Ain't Free (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3357276)

Then limit the bandwidth.

It's no good offering in exchange for money, a service you cannot provide.

Re:It Ain't Free (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3357313)

Hey, if you can't afford to provide unlimited access and the users that come with it, don't claim to be unlimited. I'm tired of these half-assed companies bitching about people using their unlimited connections. Duh! What the fuck do you think unlimited came about for? It's because people were tired of being the 20th person to be sold the same bit of bandwidth and then penalized for actually using it.

Sheep are New Zeland's Real Pipe cloggers (2, Funny)

phunhippy (86447) | about 12 years ago | (#3357221)

Come on now!! we all know its not "vampires" clogging new zealands net pipes!

Everyone knows the sheep are clogging priceline.com to find the a cheap ticket out of there! they're sick of being sheared! theres only 40 milliion of them to the 3.5 million Kiwi's there(new zealanders).

p2p (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3357224)

Yeah I guess the rampant music/software/movie piracy on P2P networks is going to be what is driving the new economy in years to come.

Sure it's a generalisation, but I defy you to say that 95% of it isn't illegal use at this point in time.

Bandwidth limiting by IP? (1)

boltar (263391) | about 12 years ago | (#3357230)

Surely it wouldn't be too difficult to install some software on the routers that will start reducing the bandwidth a given IP (customer) can
use depending on how much they've downloaded in the last few minutes/hours. Perhaps a gradual decrease of their bandwith in a linear way over
the space of say a day down to a minimum level would be an idea. And if they simply disconnect and and get a new IP vis DHCP or whatever , well
I'm sure the ISP could keep a list of phones numbers people are connecting from (and insist on
no anonymous calls if NZ telecom has those).

Just my tuppence worth.

whatever (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3357232)

First of all i don't think they'd put random
bandwith limits changing all the time and .02K/s
doesn't seem very likely either.
Second of all, I don't understand why this
telecom would pay less for uploads than downloads
overseas, but that might just be me.
Also why is no source listed in that article?

Adapting priority on bandwidth usage (5, Interesting)

ukryule (186826) | about 12 years ago | (#3357250)

OK. If the problem is that some users are hogging all the bandwidth, what about this for a solution:

You monitor the total bandwidth usage over the month for each user. Then you adapt the priority of each connection dependent on the usage:
User A has only used 2MB bandwidth this month, so you give their requests priority over User B who has already downloaded 200MBs.

In prinicipal, this is easy and seems a fair solution - the more data you download the slower your connection becomes. I'm sure this has been thought of/implemented already - so why aren't ISPs using something like this?

Re:Adapting priority on bandwidth usage (2, Insightful)

macrom (537566) | about 12 years ago | (#3357325)

the more data you download the slower your connection becomes. I'm sure this has been thought of/implemented already - so why aren't ISPs using something like this?

Because usage isn't always usage. What if User B has already downloaded 200MB, but it's actually the first day of the month? Let's also say that user pulled down MP3s, some pr0n, a copy of Adobe Photoshop from Kazaa, and some e-mail. Should that user be throttled? Some say yes...

Now, what if User B has already downloaded 200MB and it's the 20th of the month? She's exceeded 200MB because she keeps e-mailing large documents to her colleagues working on cancer research. She's also connected to her e-mail server all day long, so those small packets for checking add up over time. Should this user be throttled? One could make a case that her usage is more "legitimate" than the usage of the "pirate".

The problem is this : determining "legitimate" use versus "less proper" use is so vague. Blanket limits on bandwidth could hurt people that use large amounts of bandwidth over time, just in smaller chucks on a continuing basis. For ISPs to determine who's using what bandwidth when and how could present an administration nightmare. Blocking P2P applications which tend to suck bandwidth for (arguably) less "appropriate" applications is just plain easier (evidently).

Add in that P2P content is presenting legal issues around the globe (or is it only here in the US?), this NZ company may be blocking use to cover its own ass.

P2P good for ISP (2, Insightful)

elgaard (81259) | about 12 years ago | (#3357256)

IT seems to me that P2P could be a big advantage
for ISP's. Most P2P protocols support caching.
That could make most of the traffic internal to an ISP.

A bit like ISP proxy servers were supposed to do,
before everthing became dynamic.

Maybe ISP's should set up huge gnutella servers.
If all users could get the most popular files
at full speed from
a gnutella server at their ISP they would not
generate much less international traffic.

Maybe ISP's should not count intra-ISP traffic in
a monthly cap or reserve extra bandhwidth for
intra-ISP traffic. We would soon see P2P protocols
taking advantage of this, thus minimizing external
traffic for the ISP's.

Then again, maybe this is already happening.
Maybe P2P clients tend to get files from hosts
in the same ISP or at least country because interantional
traffic is a bottleneck.
I wonder how much P2P traffic is international
compared to eg. HTTP.

not that it matters (3, Interesting)

nzhavok (254960) | about 12 years ago | (#3357259)

not that it matters too much at the moment as telecoms most popular "high-speed" package is 128kb ADSL connection (about $30 US BTW), oh and apparently 128kb is too much for any single connection so they limit you on each particular file you download to about 56kb!!

I used to have a high speed satellite connection through IHUG which would peek at about 2500kbps but then they did the stupidist thing they could do and capped it at 512MB per month! Thats write the high-speed, high bandwidth connection was capped at 512MB, which meant you could use your month quota in under 30 minutes, and still not get a single ISO.

We are getting some faster connections through cable company saturn, they offer you higher speed connections such as 256kb or 512kb, however even though these cost more, the monthly data cap is a lot less. IIRC 128 was capped at 10GB and then the 256 (which costs more) was capped at 5GB. Saturn mainly targets businesses. Again that's not such a problem since only a small proportion of people are connected by this anyway. So in short, sure it's a hassle but the bandwidth here is so limited that it's no big deal anyway.

my isp does it too (1)

jefklak (551371) | about 12 years ago | (#3357280)

I suspect my broadband isp (telenet belgium) limits kazaa bandwith for all its cable users. Or maybe the network has just become slower. Does anyone have any info on that?

Who cares (1)

Ubi_NL (313657) | about 12 years ago | (#3357287)

This is a free world

If you don't like Telecom products, go to someone else.

Having said this, I can fully understand the ISP's decision as I've seen what MP3 and DivX can do to my server's bandwith. I don't see why creating GB traffic just because your are too lazy to go out and rent "will drive the technology economy in years to come". All it will drive up is prices.

Re:Who cares (2, Informative)

Plug (14127) | about 12 years ago | (#3357326)

Telecom own the local loop. They are our spun-off-from-the-Government telco. We have no choice.

Re:Who cares (2)

Zaffle (13798) | about 12 years ago | (#3357345)

&lt:RANT>

Yup, except, its not a free world.
For starters, Telecom maintains and controls *ALL* DSL in NZ. Because they still own the local loop.

So, I go elsewhere?
Cable. Nope, Not yet. Not atleast in Auckland. (The biggest City in NZ).
Satelite. Nope, limited by the 2nd biggest provider (IHUG).
Radio? Ok, *maybe*, for about twice the price, and radio doesn't work in the rain!

Ok, I'll go live overseas. Doh, its STILL not a free world. The US won't let me just pick up and move in just because I don't like my NZ telephone provider.

So do NOT just assume just because you have it good that the rest of the world has it the same.

Heck, Our Prime Minister just admitted to atleast 4 counts of *FRAUD* in public, however for some *reason*, the government isn't pressing charges. Funny that. And you thought Billy boy Clinton was bad, atleast you had the resemblance of a trial or any kind of justice.

</RANT;>

This article... (3, Interesting)

Bnonn (553709) | about 12 years ago | (#3357289)

...is garbage. I'm a bit disappointed in the standard of writing for the Herald, considering it's the largest newspaper in this country. Not only does the article not examine many sides of the issue, such as how many people are using Kazaa enough to be considered "vampires" (please, what a ridiculous term; this isn't even an editorial, it's a personal rant--stop throwing your toys out the cot Burton) and what Telecom's profit margins are on the service, but it blatantly omits several key points that turn the article into little more than fud.

For example, Burton says in the article that he sometimes gets as little as 0.02 kiBps on Kazaa, and an average of less than 1 kiBps. Erm, entry for Duh Magazine, anyone? I mean, I'm only on dialup so I can't speak for 128k Jetstart, but I regularly get less than 1 kiBps even when my connection is completely idle. It's a huge p2p network; it's invariably pretty slow. Sure, the average he states does seem a bit low, and perhaps Telecom is throttling bandwidth a bit, but the range of download speeds he states (if we are to take his word; I see no actual figures) seem to indicate that there's something more at work that simply that. Assuming that sometimes bandwidth is throttled more and less, it's still disingenuous to suggest that the only cause for such slow downloads is due to Telecom.

I also find it ridiculous that he suggests, "to be consistent Xtra [Telecom's ISP branch] should be limiting bandwidth used by Microsoft Update and Messenger software which act as servers too." Microsoft update is a necessary feature for many people, and neither it nor MSM, ICQ or IRC is going to be sucking anywhere near the bandwidth that filesharing apps do. This is either just a completely skewed viewpoint, or plain ignorance. In my view it's the latter, since Burton (the Herald IT editor) doesn't seem to even know enough to differentiate between GB (gigabytes) and Gb (gigabits).

I'm no fan of Telecom. I hate them; they're manopolistic and have extremely poor service. But this isn't a valid reason to attack them. They state in the users' contract that running servers (incidentally, I question that webservers running on their service would account for even one hundredth of the bandwidth that p2p does, although Burton seems to imply otherwise) of any kind is unacceptable. Personally, while I think it would be courteous for Telecom to inform their customers that they will actively throttle p2p and server applications (and no, I don't think messenger programs can be classified as "servers" Mr Burton), I don't see how it's a requirement on their part, or a breach of contract as Burton suggests. If you're doing something with their service that you've agreed not to, I can't see how you can complain if they quietly ensure you can no longer do that thing.

IANALawyer, so I can't speak for the legality of my opinion, but I'd be interested to hear from anyone with a more solid understanding of the technicalities.

Maybe (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3357299)

Maybe instead they should block domain squatters from running Linux servers using the vauable Microsoft name. Read more at: http://www.netcraft.com/survey/developers/microsof t.html

They should take a page out of Paradise's book (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3357334)

Paradise, another New Zealand ISP has never offered any form of flat rate plan, instead they offer very reasonoble plans the will turn away only the most hardcore downloaders. Their broadband plans have a 10gb cap on them, but local traffic only costs 1/10 of this (eg only using NZ traffic you get 100gb) and Paradise traffic is free including their fileservers with many utilitys and iso's of many linux/bsd installs.

Unfortunatly due to the Telecom's monopoly of the land lines, their dsl support is somwhat limited, however TelstraClear is laying fibre cables (When allowed to by councills that is) around New Zealand currently servicing Wellington and Christchurch. When they are finally allowed to lay the cables in auckland, i belive Telecom will be on the back step with a better priced and better product being offered to the majority of New Zealanders.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...